Just why did Indians perform so badly at the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) as to stand at the bottom of the ladder? The government thinks it is not a reflection on the country’s schooling. Advised by the NCERT, the HRD Ministry has concluded that India trailed in the international rankings because of the questions posed.

Terming these out of context, the government will take up the issue with organisers of PISA before deciding on full-scale participation in the test for 2012, with students from 10 of its states.

...

The ministry has concluded that there was a socio-cultural disconnect between the questions and Indian students. The ministry will write to the OECD and drive home the need to factor in India’s “socio-cultural milieu”. India’s participation in the next PISA cycle will hinge on this.

Considering that over 70 nations participate in PISA, it is uncertain whether an exception would be made for India. Incidentally, the Ministry of External Affairs is not enthused about a pan-India participation in PISA as it is expected to throw up discouraging results. India is already close to missing the 2012 cycle and may have to wait for 2015.

The NCERT in its report concluded that “non-exposure of students (especially in rural areas) towards the items tested in PISA” was a critical factor in the poor performance by Indian students. They cited questions relating to ATMs and use of air bags in cars.

"India is already late for the 2012 test as preparations began a year in advance. If the questions conform to our sensibilities , we will take part. We will enter into a correspondence with OECD before taking a final call," says the official. But it may already be too late. The question is: why participate at all if one is not ready for it?

...

Sydney Rebeiro, former dean, University of Delhi, says such standardized tests factor in various levels of education. But the HRD official says these tests would be difficult for children in rural areas. "If the child hasn't heard of airbags, hot air balloons and ATMs, he won't even attempt those questions. Also, such detailed questions would be confusing; straight questions would work better." But surely international tests can't be tailor-made for each country? Besides, other countries are also taking these tests.

Indian Express (July 18, 2012) carried a report, which does not seem to have been corroborated or confirmed by anyone else. Presumably, MEA refers to the Ministry of External Affairs here.

... [The HRD Ministry] is putting up a brave face and wants the PISA assessment done in as many as nine states now. But, strangely, it is the MEA that seems to have developed cold feet. The HRD Ministry has to take an approval from the MEA to get this assessment done and the MEA is learnt to be sitting on the proposal for many days now.

Some MPs have raised questions in Parliament on the India's performance in the 2009 cycle of PISA tests and what the Govt plans to do going ahead and the then HRD Minister's answers relating to PISA tests in India are excerpted below. This is as official as it gets.

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009 covered only two States, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh in India and indicates unsatisfactory performance of students in these two States.

Ashok Tanwar - Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3945 answered on 05.09.2012 specifically asked "whether there is any proposal to implement International Student Assessment (ISA) Programme in all States so as to build capacity for international participation and to understand the methodology and other aspects of the international survey; " (sic)

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a project of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), was piloted in two Indian states, namely, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. However, no decision has been taken to implement the Programme in all states of the country. (emphasis mine)

The official view (as of September 09, 2012) is that the Government has not taken any decision. Since time is running out for participation in the 2012 cycle of PISA tests, the Minister of HRD ought to make a statement on the following:

Has the Government written to the OECD (organisers of PISA 2012) about its concerns of a socio-cultural disconnect between the questions and Indian students? If so, when did the Government write to OECD? If not, when does the Government plan to write to the OECD?

If the Government has already written to the OECD, has the Government received a reply from the OECD in response to its letter? If so, when did it receive the reply and what did the OECD say?

Has the Government taken a decision to participate in PISA 2012 or not? If so, what has it decided? If not, by when does the Government expect to take a decision?

The lack of any official statements makes one wonder - is the Government planning to take no decision till it is too late to participate in the 2012 cycle and then tout that as the excuse for not participating?

If your children are about 15 years old or more, you could ask them to try out the sample questions and see how they fare. Teachers may also like to try them out. It would be interesting to find out what teachers think of the level of these questions and the capability of their students to answer them.

The list has sample questions from the field trials and the actual PISA tests administered in 2000, 2003 and 2006 including questions testing reading literacy, mathematical literacy, and scientific literacy. The detailed answer keys to all the questions are also provided.

For some of the questions used in the actual PISA tests in past years, country-wise data on the percentage of children that got the answer right is also provided.

Aside 1: You can also try out examples of computer-based questions to test reading of digital texts, mathematical and problem solving skills. These have been tried out in a few countries during the 2009 cycle and will be tried out in the upcoming 2012 PISA cycle too, in some countries.

Aside 2: While only Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh participated in the 2009+ cycle of PISA tests, more states in India will be participating in the 2012 cycle of PISA tests.

January 09, 2012

Rattled over the dismal performance of Indian schools on a reputed international ranking system, the Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Ministry has asked the National Council of Education Research & Training (NCERT) to probe reasons for this poor show and submit a report to Minister Kapil Sibal.There was a random selection of schools from the two states for PISA with a large number of government and rural area schools in the sample size, sources said. This was also a factor to be considered in view of the nature of PISA questions, officials pointed out.

The MHRD officials (in a Freudian slip?) suggest that the results are bad because a large number of government and rural schools were included in the sample! The Indian Express reporter smartly checked with Dr. Ratna Dhamija, the PISA Co-ordinator at ACER India, the organisation that conducted the test, and she busted that theory.

“It is important for you to know that the schools who participated in the PISA 2009+ were randomly selected by the PISA consortium and were selected from all eligible educational institutions of the two states where 15-year-old students were studying,” said Dr Ratna Dhamija, manager India, Australian Council for Educational Research (India) that helped in conducting PISA for India, in an emailed response to this newspaper.

Lant Pritchett analyses the PISA results in Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh and says "They confirm the worst of what anyone has been saying about the levels of learning in India elementary education."

How has the free, compulsory and nearly meaningless (if not entirely useless) education provided in government schools failed to stir the collective conscience? Perhaps because the establishment has done just about enough to string people along. The midday meal scheme is, to put it mildly, a devious masterstroke. For (the government may argue) what use is teaching a kid who doesn’t even get two square meals a day? Fair point, I concede. But a counter to that would be: what use is feeding a kid once a day without teaching him anything and eventually leaving him to fend for himself with little education and no skills to find meaningful employment? A classic case of feed a fish or teach to fish. In the case of government schools however, even the quality of the fish is suspect. .....

Why does this not fail to incite the youth’s ire? It is because educational inequity has always been a subliminal issue. And that could be attributed to the fact that its effect cannot be readily quantified. .....

The scale of the problem of educational inequity in the country is too immense to wrap one’s wits around. To say the least, and at the risk of sounding tedious, it’s a no brainer that it has now become imperative for the country’s top bananas (if I may be allowed that expression) to come forth to try and solve it. We need more people teaching in classrooms than the ill-informed yet enthusiastic crowd that spilled onto the streets during the anti-graft campaign. And even then we’d fall short by a huge margin

Nobody in the political system realises that the historical window of opportunity for putting in lasting changes is very small. In our case, it is 10 to 15 years given our demography. If we don’t lay the foundation for wealth and prosperity in the next 15 years, then the India story is gone forever. You will then grow old, before you grow rich.

Coincidentally, an article in The Atlantic looks at why Finland's schools are successful and points to their focus on addressing inequity.

Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity.

Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. "There's no word for accountability in Finnish," he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. "Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted."

For perspective and comparison with HP and TN, I have picked the top three in the PISA results - Shanghai-China, South Korea and Finland and also USA as a large country (in geography and population terms) and a few other countries like Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey and Argentina as emerging economies with large populations. Of all these countries, four of them, Finland, Mexico, Turkey and USA are part of the OECD. The OECD average is also provided - it is the arithmetic mean of the estimates for the 34 OECD countries that participated in PISA 2009.

The last column indicates the % of students having proficiency in reading literacy above the baseline level to participate effectively and productively in life (Table B.2.2, p 109). There are seven proficiency levels in reading (Tables 2.2 to 2.6 p 15-17), ranging from Level 6, the highest level, involving sophisticated reading tasks that are generally only able to be completed by highly competent readers; through to Level 1b, involving elementary tasks that require only very basic reading skills. Level 2 is considered the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the reading skills that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life.

Mean

S.E.

Confidence Interval

5th Percentile

S.E. of 5th Percentile

95th Percentile

S.E. of 95th Percentile

% at or over baseline

Himachal Pradesh

317

4

309 - 325

192

6.9

443

8.5

10.8

Tamil Nadu

337

5.5

326 - 347

211

4.5

472

14.4

17.3

OECD Average

493

0.5

492 - 494

332

1

637

0.7

81.2

Shanghai-China

556

2.4

551 - 561

417

5.2

679

3.3

95.9

South Korea

539

3.5

532 - 546

400

7.6

658

3.8

94.2

Finland

536

2.3

531 - 540

382

3.4

666

2.6

91.9

USA

500

3.7

493 - 507

339

4.2

656

5.8

82.4

Brazil

412

2.7

406 - 417

262

3

572

4.6

50.4

Russian Federation

459

3.3

453 - 466

310

5.8

607

5.6

72.6

Indonesia

402

3.7

394 - 409

291

5.8

510

5.8

46.6

Mexico

425

2

421 - 429

281

3.9

557

2.4

59.9

Turkey

464

3.5

457 - 471

325

5.1

596

5.4

75.5

Argentina

398

4.6

389 - 407

209

11.3

568

6.7

48.4

The OECD mean reading score is 493 with a standard deviation of 93. The mean reading scores of both HP and TN are 1.7 standard deviations below the OECD mean. Even the 95th percentile scores in HP and TN are below the OECD mean. HP and TN rank significantly lower than the other emerging economies too.

The other metric of the percentage of students at or above the baseline level of proficiency is abysmally low in HP (11%) and TN (17%), and a serious cause for concern. While the OECD average is 81%, the percentage of students at or above the baseline level in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina is in the 50% range. These countries seem to be far better off than HP and TN.

There may be a reason for this. In response to the question posed to students "What language do you speak at home most of the time?", the options being (1) the language of the test or (2) another language, a substantial majority of students said they spoke the language of the test at home in many countries - Finland (95.63%), Mexico (95.48%), Turkey (95.57%), USA (85.56%), Argentina (95.38%), Brazil (96.72%), Russian Federation (90.12%) and Shanghai-China (98.41%). But the corresponding numbers were much lower for Tamil Nadu (67.53%) and Himachal Pradesh (60.5%). I have only picked a few countries for comparison and have not looked at these numbers for all the other countries. Click here for the data.

One might think the low reading scores for TN and HP may be due to the fact that they were being tested in a language that was not their native language. Apparently the PISA 2009+ tests were administered in English, Hindi and Tamil in India (Source p 6). But surprisingly, the test scores of children in both Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh who said the test language was not their first language were higher than the scores of children who said the test language was their first language!

I'm unable to understand the relationship between the scores, the first language and the test language - other experts may be able to throw some light. There may be an issue about the medium of instruction and the medium of testing for children in India leading to a comprehension problem. This merits further investigation before the PISA 2012 series of tests are administered.

The last column indicates the % of students having proficiency in mathematical literacy above the baseline level to participate effectively and productively in life (Table B.3.2, p 124). There are six proficiency levels in mathematical literacy (Table 3.2 p 43) ranging from Level 6 (involving advanced mathematical skills and reasoning) through to Level 1 (involving routine mathematical tasks and procedures). Level 2 is considered the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the mathematical skills that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life.

Mean

S.E.

Confidence Interval

5th Percentile

S.E. of 5th Percentile

95th Percentile

S.E. of 95th Percentile

% at or over baseline

Himachal Pradesh

338

4.2

330 - 347

223

6.8

458

8.8

11.9

Tamil Nadu

351

5.1

341 - 361

241

6.6

468

13.8

15.2

OECD Average

496

0.5

495 - 497

343

0.9

643

0.8

78

Brazil

386

2.4

381 - 390

261

3

531

5.9

30.9

Shanghai-China

600

2.8

595 - 606

421

7.1

757

4.6

95.2

South Korea

546

4

538 - 554

397

8.4

689

6.5

91.9

Finland

541

2.2

536 - 545

399

4.4

669

3.6

92.2

USA

487

3.6

480 - 494

337

4.3

637

5.9

76.6

Russian Federation

468

3.3

461 - 474

329

5.1

609

7.2

71.5

Indonesia

371

3.7

364 - 379

260

4.9

493

8.6

23.4

Mexico

419

1.8

415 - 422

289

3.2

547

3.3

49.2

Turkey

445

4.4

437 - 454

304

5.2

613

12.2

57.8

Argentina

388

4.1

380 - 396

231

7.9

543

7

36.4

The OECD mean mathematics score is 496 with a standard deviation of 92. The mean mathematics scores of both HP and TN are 1.6 standard deviations below the OECD mean. Even the 95th percentile scores in HP and TN are below the OECD mean. Compared to the other emerging economies, HP and TN rank significantly lower.

The other metric of percentage of students at or above the baseline level of proficiency is abysmally low in HP (12%) and TN (15%), and a serious cause for concern. While the OECD average is 78%, the percentage of students at or above the baseline level in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina is in the 23%-30% range. These countries seem to be just a bit better off than HP and TN in mathematical literacy.

The last column indicates the % of students having proficiency in scientific literacy above the baseline level to participate effectively and productively in life (Table B.3.4, p 129). There are six proficiency levels in scientific literacy (Table 3.4 p 54) ranging from Level 6 (involving the application of scientific knowledge and knowledge about science to complex life situations) through to Level 1 (where the tasks require only limited scientific knowledge to be applied to familiar situations). Level 2 is considered the baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to participate actively in life situations related to science and technology.

Mean

S.E.

Confidence Interval

5th Percentile

S.E. of 5th Percentile

95th Percentile

S.E. of 95th Percentile

% at or over baseline (Table B.3.4)

Himachal Pradesh

325

4.2

317 - 333

209

6.8

450

11.1

11.2

Tamil Nadu

348

4.2

340 - 357

252

4.3

461

12.1

15.5

OECD Average

501

0.5

500 - 502

341

1

649

0.7

82

Brazil

405

2.4

401 - 410

275

3.5

554

4.8

45.8

Shanghai-China

575

2.3

570 - 579

430

4.9

700

3.3

96.8

South Korea

538

3.4

531 - 545

399

6.5

665

4.8

93.7

Finland

554

2.3

550 - 559

400

4.2

694

3.6

94

USA

502

3.6

495 - 509

341

4.8

662

6.7

81.9

Russian Federation

478

3.3

472 - 485

331

5.8

628

5.2

78

Indonesia

383

3.8

375 - 390

272

5.4

499

5.4

34.4

Mexico

416

1.8

412 - 419

291

2.8

544

2.8

52.7

Turkey

454

3.6

447 - 461

322

5

587

6.4

47.6

Argentina

401

4.6

392 - 410

228

10.6

564

7.9

70.1

The OECD mean science score is 501 with a standard deviation of 94. The mean science scores of both HP and TN are 1.6 standard deviations below the OECD mean. Even the 95th percentile scores in HP and TN are below the OECD mean. Compared to the other developing economies, HP and TN rank significantly lower.

The other metric of percentage of students at or above the baseline level or proficiency is abysmally low in HP (11%) and TN (16%), and a serious cause for concern. While the OECD average is 82%, the percentage of students at or above the baseline level in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina is in the 34%-70% range. These countries, especially Argentina (70%) seem to be far better off than HP and TN in scientific literacy.

Visible, but unseen so far - what do we make of the PISA 2009+ results in HP and TN?

The PISA 2009+ results provide us an opportunity to crystallise reform. Although we knew things aren't good, we have shied away from figuring out how bad they are. We can't do that anymore. Knowing that we are at the bottom of the list of 74 countries leaves us no room for denying the reality on the grounds that there is no data that says things are bad. The PISA 2012 cycle is only likely to show us how much worse it is when the data from all the other states are also available.

I hope we won't shoot the messenger and question the motives of the OECD which organises the PISA tests or worse, go into a shell and refuse to participate in the 2012 PISA cycle. It would be interesting to see what the MHRD has to say about the PISA results. I am waiting for an MP to ask a question about this in Parliament. The question will need to be phrased cleverly, or else the Minister will get away by saying nothing meaningful.

To improve, we will need to embark on serious and sustained assessment and exam reform to change the way we evaluate what students have learnt. If we begin testing for comprehension, understanding and the ability to think and reason out, there will be an incentive for schools, teachers and students to work towards honing those skills rather than the ability to reproduce the precise expected answer. Exam reform will also require changing the way things students are taught in a classroom and as a result teacher education as well. It will take many years to turn the system around, given the huge inbuilt inertia. But there is no alternative to the long hard way.

Dependence of students' scores on student and school characteristics

The detailed report also describes the variation of student scores as a function of various parameters to try and identify the factors that may be responsible for some students doing better on the tests. I've looked at the data on a couple of such parameters below.

Public Schools vs Private Schools

An index of school type is constructed by combining a classification of the school as public or private and the proportion of core funding received from government agencies. A public school is defined in PISA as one that is managed directly or indirectly by a public education authority, government agency, or governing board appointed by government or elected by public franchise. A government-independent private school is classified as one that is not managed by a government agency and receives less than 50% of its core funding from government agencies.

Reading

Reading

Mathematics

Mathematics

Science

Science

Country

Category

%

%SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Himachal Pradesh

Public

85.07

3.08

310

5.41

331

5.45

317

5.84

Himachal Pradesh

Private

14.93

3.08

356

14.57

379

12.01

372

14.86

Himachal Pradesh

m

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Tamil Nadu

Public

60.1

3.32

325

6.72

334

6.09

339

5

Tamil Nadu

Private

39.9

3.32

356

9.84

378

8.33

365

7.62

Tamil Nadu

m

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

OECD Average

Public

81.9

0.3

488

0.63

491

0.64

496

0.67

OECD Average

Private

17.85

0.3

518

2.02

519

2.04

525

1.93

OECD Average

m

1.17

0.36

444

5.18

452

8.47

458

6.11

m - Missing or invalid response category (this category is excluded from computations of group percentages in the international report)

a - The category does not apply in the country concerned. Data therefore missing

The mean scores of students in public schools can be compared to those in private schools through the response to a question posed to schools "Is your school a public or a private school?". In almost all countries in the set that I looked at, students in private schools seem to have done better than students in public schools, except for Indonesia where students in public schools did better.

Students in private schools did better in Tamil Nadu (40% of schools tested were private schools) and Himachal Pradesh (15% of schools tested were private schools) too. Click here for the data.

Reading Habits of Students

The 15-year-old student populations in Tamil Nadu-India and Himachal Pradesh-India were estimated to have among the lowest reading literacy levels of the PISA 2009 and PISA 2009+ participants with more than 80% of students below the baseline of proficiency. Around one-fifth of students in these economies are very poor readers.

Students were assigned a reader profile based on their self-report to questions on two dimensions: effective learning strategies; and frequency of reading a range of materials.

Students with high levels of effective learning strategies were classified as ‘deep’ readers, while those with low levels of learning strategies were classified as ‘surface’ readers. Additionally, students who indicated they read a range of materials regularly were classified as ‘wide’ readers, those who indicated they only read magazines or newspapers regularly were classified as ‘narrow’ readers, and those who indicated they did not read any materials regularly were classified as ‘highly restricted’ readers.

In PISA 2009 an index of social, economic and cultural status was constructed (ESCS). The data used to construct the index came from responses to a variety of items within the student questionnaire. These items included parental levels of education, parental occupation, the number of books in the home and a variety of items measuring family wealth, the presence of cultural possessions in the home, and the presence of educational resources in the home. This index is used in models presented subsequently in this chapter to unpack the amount of variance in performance that is, firstly, due to social, economic and cultural factors; and secondly, due to school level factors.

The socioeconomic profiles of Tamil Nadu-India and Himachal Pradesh-India are very similar (Figure 4.9 p 78). Both populations have low socioeconomic status relative to the OECD average. Socioeconomic status is not a strong predictor of reading performance, as measured by PISA, in these populations

Other indices that summarise responses from students, their parents or school representatives (typically principals) to a series of questions

Student scores can also be compared across a variety of other factors including:

student age, occupational status or parents, educational level of parents, language background, family structure, family wealth (whether students had the following at home: a room of their own, a link to the Internet, a dishwasher (treated as a country-specific item), a DVD player, and three other country-specific items (some items in ST20); and their responses on the number of cellular phones, televisions, computers, cars and the rooms with a bath or shower), home educational resources (whether students had the following resources at home: a desk and a quiet place to study, a computer that students can use for schoolwork, educational software, books to help with students’ school work, technical reference books and a dictionary) and cultural possessions (whether students had the following at home: classic literature, books of poetry and works of art),

relative grade of the students, learning time in school in the test language, students' reading habits and activities, students' approaches to learning, students' attitudes towards school, students' perception of teachers, students' perception of the disciplinary climate in school, students' reports on teacher stimulation of reading, students' reports of how their language of instruction was taught by the teachers, students' use of libraries, students' reports on how they understood and memorised the text,

school and class size, student teacher ratio, proportion of girls enrolled, availability of computers in school, number of teachers, basis for admission to the school, whether resource allocation and curriculum and assessment policies were decided at the school level or at a higher level, teacher shortage, extracurricular activities in the school, student behaviour and teacher behaviour.

There are many terms and concepts used in the PISA 2009+ report, which also lays out some caveats in interpreting the results, for Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in particular. This post looks at the terminology and the caveats described in the detailed report on the PISA 2009+ cycle of tests on the results for the pilot in India in the states of Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh.

Proficiency levels. To help interpret what students’ scores mean in substantive terms, the scale is divided into bands or levels (based on a set of statistical principles) and then descriptions are generated (based on the tasks that are located within each level) to describe the kinds of skills and knowledge needed to successfully complete those tasks.For PISA 2009, the range of difficulty of tasks allows for the description of seven levels of reading proficiency: the range of difficulty of tasks allows for the description of seven levels of reading proficiency: Level 1b requires the lowest proficiency, then Level 1a, Level 2, Level 3 and so on up to Level 6. Students with a proficiency estimated to be within the range of Level 1b are likely to be able to successfully complete Level 1b tasks, but are unlikely to be able to complete tasks at higher levels. Level 6 reflects tasks that present the greatest challenge in terms of skills and knowledge. Students with scores in this range in reading are likely to be able to complete reading tasks located at that level successfully, as well as all the other reading tasks in PISA. The mathematics and science scales are divided into six proficiency levels, from Level 1 (least proficient) to Level 6 (most proficient). (p 5)

Baseline level of proficiency: Level 2 is considered a baseline level of proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the skills that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life. The percent of students at or above the baseline level of proficiency is the percentage of students at or above Level 2.

Confidence levels: The statistics in this report represent estimates of national performance based on samples of students, rather than values that could be calculated if every student in every country had answered every question. Consequently, it is important to measure the degree of uncertainty of the estimates. The use of confidence intervals provides a way to make inferences about the population means and proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty introduced through the sampling of students, and for the tests, the use of a small set of items. From an observed sample statistic it can be inferred that the corresponding population result would lie within the confidence interval in 95 out of 100 replications of the measurement on different samples drawn from the same population. (p 100)

Standard error: Each estimate has an associated degree of uncertainty, which is expressed through a standard error. The standard errors for most of the statistics used in this report are provided in the data tables within Appendix B (abbreviated as S.E.). Standard errors are used to construct the confidence interval. A 95% confidence interval around a statistic is calculated as the statistics value +/- 1.96 × the standard error. (p 100)

Statistical Significance: In the tables, figures and text of this report, differences are labelled or described as statistically significant when a difference of that size or greater would be observed less than 5% of the time in a similar sample drawn from the same population, if there were actually no difference in the corresponding population. Where observed differences do not meet this criterion, they are described as being not statistically significantly different, or as ‘statistically the same’. (p 4)

PISA student populations: Total population of 15-year-olds is an estimate of the number of 15-year-olds in the country/economy, including those who are not attending educational institutions.Total population 15-year-olds enrolled in grade 7 or above is the estimate of the PISA eligible population.Total in national desired population refers to the number of students from the PISA eligible population who are potentially included as part of the PISA sample.

Equity of outcomes within countries: the degree to which there is equality of outcomes among student subpopulations including analyis of- the differences in educational outcomes between boys and girls;- the relationship between socioeconomic background and educational outcomes; and- the relationships between school policies and practice and educational outcomes.

OECD average is the arithmetic mean of the estimates for the 34 OECD countries that participated in PISA 2009. Each country contributes equally to the calculation of the OECD average, regardless of the number of 15-year-olds in its population.

There seem to have been many issues in the population data provided and the student sampling in Himachal Pradesh (HP) and Tamil Nadu (TN) during the PISA 2009+ cycle. The report lays out the caveats in interpreting the data from these two states in India:

Executive Summary (page xii)Ten additional partner participants who were unable to participate within the PISA 2009 project timeframe participated in the PISA 2009 study on a reduced and delayed timeline. This is known as the PISA 2009+ project. The ten PISA 2009+ participants administered the same assessments as their PISA 2009 counterparts, the only difference being that the assessments were administered in 2010. The PISA 2009+ countries or economies were adjudicated against the same technical and quality standards as their PISA 2009 counterparts*.

* Himachal Pradesh-India, Miranda-Venezuela and Tamil Nadu-India did not meet all PISA standards (for student sampling) and their results should be interpreted with caution. See ‘Sampling outcomes’ in Appendix A for details.

Data on student populations and exclusions were not supplied or were of insufficient quality to report the following for Himachal Pradesh-India and Tamil Nadu-India [Appendix A - page 101, Table A.2 - Population Coverage Indices - page 102]:- the number of 15-year-olds in the country/economy, including those who are not attending educational institutions,- population of 15-year-olds enrolled in grade 7 or above which is the estimate of the PISA eligible population- number of students from the PISA eligible population who are potentially included as part of the PISA sample

Himachal Pradesh-India and Tamil Nadu-India did not meet PISA standards for student sampling. Due to irregularities in the student sample numbers, it was established after the testing that these economies sampled from student lists that were often incomplete: not all 15-year-olds within the school were listed. It was not possible to determine whether any bias existed in the obtained sample. Caution should be exercised when using the data from Himachal Pradesh-India or Tamil Nadu-India and when interpreting the reported analyses. [Appendix A - Table A. 4 - Student Response Rates & Sample Size - page 104]

December 28, 2011

The Indian Government seems to have been reluctant initially to participate in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests. In reply to a question in Parliament on March 10th, 2008 by Rajya Sabha MP, Rahul Bajaj on the reasons for India not participating in the PISA tests, Arjun Singh, the then Minister for HRD, didn't answer the question, but instead responded saying,

The Government of India conducts its own pupil learning achievement surveys under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) through National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) aimed to track changes in learning achievement levels of students and to give a national picture of the status of students learning levels. NCERT conducted such sample surveys for Class V in 2002-03, for Class III and Class VII/VIII in 2003-04 and for Class-V in 2006-07. The NCERT surveys cover a representative sample of students across districts.

Subsequently, the government seems to have changed its mind and decided to participate in the PISA tests on a pilot basis. In NCERT's Annual Report for 2008-09 (p117), there is a mention of Prof. Avtar Singh of NCERT attending the National Project Managers Meeting of PISA 2009 cycle at Frankfurt in February 2009. To my knowledge, there is no other mentionof PISA on any of the government web sites or documents.

By the time India and eight other countries decided to participate in the PISA tests in the 2009 cycle, 65 countries had already completed the testing in the 2009 cycle. So these nine countries participating for the first time conducted the PISA tests in a separate round termed the PISA 2009+ cycle.

A February 2011 report by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) office in India on the preparation for conducting the PISA tests in the two states in India as part of the 2009+ round provides some context and background.

In 2009 PISA cycle, 65 countries (32 member and 33 non member) participated. In India after continuous deliberation among the leading educational policy making institutes like MHRD, NCERT, NUEPA, CBSE and development partners like World Bank, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between OECD and MHRD regarding India’s participation in PISA in 2009 plus cycle. As it was late for any country to participate in PISA, a new timeline was developed to accommodate India and eight other countries (Georgia, Costa Rica, Mauritius, Malaysia, Moldova, Venezuela (Miranda), Malta, UAE (except Dubai). Initially it was suggested, India was to participate in PISA with four states but on further deliberations it was decided that only two Indian states (Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu) will participate in this prestigious activity.

World Bank contracted Australian Council for Educational Research (India) to support NCERT in conducting PISA 2009 plus in India in the states of Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu for training of personnel involve in field administration (school coordinator & test administrator), quality monitoring of field administration, training of coders and supervision of coding activities.

In India, PISA is administered in three languages i.e., English, Hindi and Tamil.

There are more details in the ACER India report on how personnel were trained to administer the PISA tests in Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, how quality was monitored and the challenges faced in adminstering the PISA tests in India for the first time. Around 16,000 students from 400 schools in these two states were tested as part of the PISA 2009+ cycle of tests.

In an earlier post, I had looked at PISA: What? Why? How? and in the next post, I will look at the results of the PISA 2009+tests in Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh.

December 26, 2011

Two states in India, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh, have participated for the first time in a pilot in the 2009 PISA round of testing. Here's some background information on PISA, documented for later reference.

For a quick and handy description of PISA, its worth spending the 12 minutes to watch this video. The PISA FAQ has more details.

PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is an international study which began in the year 2000. It aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in participating countries/economies. Since the year 2000 over 70 countries and economies have participated in PISA.

The objective of the study is to provide countries with international comparative data as well as with national trend data on reading, mathematical and scientific literacy and problem solving skills of 15 year old students.

The PISA website describes these skills as follows:

Mathematical Literacy: An individual’s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world to make well-founded judgments and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual’s life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen. More details on PISA's approach to testing mathematical literacy are available here.

Reading literacy: An individual’s capacity to understand, use and reflect on written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential and to participate in society. More details on PISA's approach to testing reading literacy are available here.

Scientific literacy: The capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity. More details on PISA's approach to testing scientific literacy are available here.Problem Solving: In the PISA 2003 cycle, an additional domain of problem solving was introduced to continue the examination of cross-curriculum competencies. More details on PISA's approach to testing problem solving ability are available here.

All students take pencil-and-paper tests, with assessments lasting a total of two hours for each student. For the PISA 2009 assessment, some participating countries/economies have also opted for an assessment of the reading of electronic texts. Test items are a mixture of multiple-choice items and questions requiring students to construct their own responses. The items are organised in groups based on a passage setting out a real-life situation. You can take an interactive version of the tests here.

A total of about seven hours of test items is covered, with different students taking different combinations of test items. Students answer a background questionnaire, which takes 20-30 minutes to complete, providing information about themselves and their homes. School principals are also given a 20-minute questionnaire about their schools.

PISA surveys take place every three years, commencing in 2000. The results of previous surveys have been published by the OECD and are available. The next survey will take place in 2012.

For each survey, one of the three areas (Mathematics, Science and Reading) is chosen as the major assessment domain and it is given greater emphasis. The remaining two areas, the minor domains, are assessed less thoroughly. In 2000 the major domain was reading, in 2003 it was mathematics, in 2006 science and 2009 reading. In 2012 Mathematics will again be the major domain, and a computer-delivered assessment of problem solving will be an innovation.

The design and implementation of PISA for the 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012 data collections has been the responsibility of an international Consortium led by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) with Ray Adams as international project director.

The PISA survey also collects information from students on various aspects of their home, family and school background; and information from schools about various aspects of organisation and educational provision in schools. This information is collected to facilitate a detailed study of factors within and between countries that are associated with varying levels of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among the 15-year-old students of each country.

November 09, 2011

There were two talks on education, both focussing on incentives in school education, at the recently held Takshashila Shala in Chennai.

In the first talk, I spoke on what we can do differently to try and achieve the goal of providing a quality education for all children in India within the next ten years, something we haven't been able to do for the past 60 years.

I presented three ideas on what we could do differently. One of the ideas is a policy change for the Government to think about and the other two are something that we as civil society need to think about.

February 02, 2011

A teacher one standard deviation above the mean effectiveness annually generates marginal gains of over $400,000 in present value of student future earnings with a class size of 20 and proportionately higher with larger class sizes. Alternatively, replacing the bottom 5-8 percent of teachers with average teachers could move the U.S. near the top of international math and science rankings with a present value of $100 trillion.

according to a recent paper by Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford University, in the context of schooling in USA.

NPR's Planet Money Podcast asks if this could help to grow the U.S. economy dramatically and discusses the findings of the paper with Eric Hanushek, who puts in perspective the $100 trillion value of replacing the bottom 5%-8% of teachers by comparing it to the U.S. stimulus package of $1 trillion in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Go listen to this podcast. [Aside: I strongly recommend following NPR's Planet Money blog as well - they do an excellent job of explaining the economy to the layperson.]

We would need to figure out the corresponding numbers for the value of a teacher in the Indian context, but whatever be the numbers, the economic value of a good quality education is something that we in India need to think about in the context of our efforts to provide a quality education for every single child in a timebound manner.

If we had somehow been able to educate every child back in 1960 (the target that we set ourselves in 1950), India could have been in far better shape in terms of the economy, society and as a result the polity as well. A good part of a couple of generations of children have lost out on an education since 1950. We are still grappling with the challenge of educating every single child today and still stuck with ensuring enrollment, attendance and promoting children to the next higher class every year, irrespective of learning outcomes. While these are important, we also need to focus on the quality of education outcomes, which Pratham's Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) has been throwing light on.

We need to ensure that the salaries of good teachers are far far higher than what they are now and figure out ways to evaluate teacher performance to identify those teachers who are doing extremely well and try to figure out what makes them good teachers.

An earlier report on the findings of a study by Raj Chetty, an economist at Harvard University had talked about the value of a kindergarten teacher.

Mr. Chetty and his colleagues — one of whom, Emmanuel Saez, recently won the prize for the top research economist under the age of 40 — estimate that a standout kindergarten teacher is worth about $320,000 a year. That’s the present value of the additional money that a full class of students can expect to earn over their careers. This estimate doesn’t take into account social gains, like better health and less crime.

June 23, 2009

The Azim Premji Foundation (APF) is planning to set up the Azim Premji University (APU) a private self-financing university in Karnataka that would undertake teaching, training and R & D in fields like elementary and secondary education,education management and education policy. The APF will provide the statutory endowment fund of Rs. 25 crores. The University, while based in Karnataka will open branches elesewhere in the country. The Azim Premji University Bill is to be introduced in the Karnataka Assembly in the upcoming session, says the The Economic Times.

The University will be self-financed, with no financial grant or assistance from the State Government

Implying that reservations could apply to this university, a note issued during the meeting said that while it would be "open to all classes, castes and gender, the Government of Karnataka can make special provisions".

The Board of Governors will have two Secretaries holding the charge of the education departments, while the rest will be from outside the Government. The board will appoint auditors, lay down policies, review decisions of the university, approve the budget and decide, if necessary, on the winding up of the university. The Government reserves the right to intervene in the event of mismanagement, mal-administration and indiscipline, the note, explaining some of the clauses in the proposed Bill, said.

The Governor of the State will be a visitor of the university. He can seek any information and clarifications and confer degrees and the minister for higher education will be pro-visitor (pro-chancellor).

Business Standard interviewed Dileep Ranjekar, the CEO of the APF, who throws more light on their plans for the APU.

Where do you plan to have the varsity?If Karnataka finally passes the Bill, and empowers us to start the private university, then the location will be Bangalore.

What was the inspiration behind this concept?The biggest issue that has actually promoted us to think about the varsity is 'why is that there is no university that is focussed on elementary education in the country'. We observed that we don't have people with professional backgrounds in this country to address issues pertaining to the education sector. Hence, this university will be very similar to the national law school which was launched primarily to create professional lawyers in the country. The university will engage itself in educating professionals who, in turn, will be required for building the capabilities of teachers and managers as educators. Besides, we intend to train people who will make policy decisions based on their knowledge about education.

What courses you plan to offer?Other than creating trained educational professionals, we plan to offer a post-graduate (MA) programme in education initially. We will also launch several short-term courses which will actually be targeted at in-service development needs of education managers, teacher educators and teachers. The second important activity is research, because research is lacking in education in India. The university will focus sharply on research on several issues to understand how things works; what causes better learning; how do we develop better people and what makes an effective teacher. There are hundreds of such issues. It will also have some experimental labs as part of the university. We also intend to collaborate with a number of states across the country to help them through education resource centres.

Since it will be a self-financing university, will students bear the cost?Essentially it will be borne by the students. But where the students can't afford, we will have a scholarship programme.

How much funding have you received from Azim Premji for the Foundation so far?We have earmarked close to Rs 650 crore so far, and this has been entirely funded by Azim Premji. We work with the government and we leverage the funds which we spend. The leverage is very important because the state has really the strength. Because anybody else spending money on the education is going to be very minuscule. The Foundation works with the government which is responsible for schooling. We work with close to about 20,000 schools across the country.

Will the UGC recognise the courses being offered by the university?The university that comes into existence through a state legislation, will automatically be a recognised university. We don't have to approach the UGC for this.

The APF website lists K.S. Viswanathan as the person in charge of the APU project. Viswanathan had outlined APF's thoughts on improving education in India and its current activities in an interview last January.

VP: What exactly is the Azim Premji foundation doing now in the school scene in Karnataka?

K.S.V: The Azim Premji foundation is focused on Rural Government Schools in the states. We work along with the State Governments in executing some of their priorities. Karnataka has over 45,000 Elementary Schools and 8,000 Education functionaries. However, the learning levels in these schools are very low.

The key objective of the Azim Premji Foundation is to significantly contribute to the Universalisation of Elementary Education in India that facilitates a just, equitable and humane society. After 7 years of operations driving this goal, the foundation has now identifiedTeacher, Education functionaries as well as Examination reformsas the three pillars as the major programs to pursue.

Teachers tend to teach what gets tested. Teachers are the key transformational agents in the class rooms. Education Functionaries play an important role on how a teacher is actually engaged in a class room. What is needed is a common shared Vision amongst the various stake holders in the Education System in the country. With these goals, the Azim Premji Foundation has been working with the State Government on various initiatives that will supplement their efforts in improving the quality of education in the state.

Our programs in the Karnataka Government is built around Examination reforms, Class room teaching learning process, Teacher training and preparation and Academic support for schools.

We started with Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) in North East Karnataka (the most backward economically and academically) in 2001. This was followed with the Learning Guarantee Program ( LGP) where we ran programs to assess the learning's in the class measured in terms of Competencies acquired in Maths, Language and Science in Class 2 and Class 4. Based on our findings, the Karnataka Government set up a special Organization, Karnataka State Quality Assessment Organization ( KSQAO). KSQAO is now running the LGP program across the state to assess the competency acquired in the Elementary Schools in the state. Currently, we are implementing Child Friendly School initiatives in 330 schools in Surpur block of Yadgir district in NE Karnataka to assess the impact of Community participation in School management, Teacher support system as well as LGP.

We are also running a Management Development Program for 8000 Education functionaries in the state.

VP: What does the Foundation do in other states?

K.S.V: We have extended the concept of Learning Guarantee Program in the few districts in the states of MP, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Uttaranchal. We are also developing Child centric, self paced, interactive learning system using educational software in 18 languages including 4 tribal languages, to facilitate the unleashing of creativity in children.

In addition, in the states of Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Pondicherry, we are working with the Governments to assess the impact of Technology led initiatives in Class room learning along with, as well as providing Academic and Pedagogic support to Schools . Our programs cover 13 States, 16000 schools and 2.5 Mn children.

VP: India currently has about 35 Million children "out of school" and about 157 Million children in the school. How are you trying to bring a balance between quantity and quality?

K.S.V: We have a unique challenge here. We need more schools to cover larger number of children in the country and at the same time, the quality of education in terms of school infrastructure, class room process as well as Teacher support system. Post the launch of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Universalisation of Elementary Education) program, there has been an improvement in the access to the school for the children in the rural areas. Today, close to 90 % of the children have an access to an elementary school within a distance of 3 Kms from their homes. However, in the process the quality of education has taken a beating. Other programs like Mid day meals, free text books etc have further enhanced the gross enrolment ratio in the schools to around 90%. This is good and welcome news with respect to quantity.

However, quality of education has emerged as the biggest concern in the elementary school system in the country. We have around 200 mn children in the age group of 6-14; out of who only 52% of them reach Class 8 and only 31% reach class 10.Even amongst these children, only 1/3rd of the children are able to read and write their names in their native language.

One of the main reasons for the higher drop out rate as well as low learning in the elementary schools, is thequality of class room process, Curriculum design and Teacher support system in addition to other socio economic factors. The good news is there is an increased awareness on these issues and there is a good focus from all concerned including NGO's like Azim Premji Foundation, Ministry of Education in the Central and in the state government to address these issues . It is a slow but a definite process towards improving the quality of education in the elementary schools.

VP: So what, according to you, are the key needs of elementary education today?

K.S.V: Elementary Education today requires a good Academic Support System, more accountability to all stake holders including the Community for learning outcomes as well as a common shared strategic perspective amongst all stake holders in the system. Making the Teacher's job more exciting, more important as well bringing more recognition to the teachers and the Education functionaries can change the way we look at the Elementary education system in the country.

We need more Action research in the challenges of the Elementary Education. There is also a need to revamp the teacher Education system in the country focused on Elementary schools.

The APF's strategy of addressing the challenge of universalisation of elemenatary education by improving the quality of teachers and the quality of the classroom learning process is an excellent one. Their idea of walking the talk and investing to set up an university focussed on teaching and education management is a welcome step. What is more, the APF's strategy of working closely with the Government, indeed partnering with them, to leverage their strengths and complement them with the APF's own strengths is very well conceived. As Dileep Ranjekar points out, the challenge of educating all our children is a challenge of scale. No private player can match the scale of the Government's efforts. The Government has a crucial role to play. Ranjekar's choice of the word "leverage" is apt in this context. The APF's efforts (backed by its Rs. 650 crore investment - no mean sum in itself, albeit just a drop compared to the Government spending on education) can provide a multiplier effect to the Government's own investments and lead to huge improvements in teaching and learning in Government schools. By working closely with the Government (the Policy Planning Unit in the Dept. of Education in Karnataka is staffed by Government officials as well as staff from the Azim Premji Foundation) and offering the Government substantial control over the running of the proposed APU, the APF is also pre-empting the possibility of any standoffs with future Governments, run by other administrations.

The APF's initiatives in area of Education Management are described on their web site. One aspect of Education Management that doesn't find a mention in their list, but deserves attention is the economics of running schools. The challenge will be to keep fees as low as possible and affordable to the masses, yet find the ways and means to delivery a high quality education in a self-sustaining manner year on year. I hope the APF is working on this too.

The APU is likely to be the first of many more such universities likely to be set up in the coming years. Just as Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata provided the seed investment to set up the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore (still knowns as Tata Institute to Bangloreans) a 100 years ago, I can see a time not before long when we will have more such universities spawned by India's successful and farsighted business leaders. Imagine an Infosys University, a Mittal University, a Mahindra University, a Tata University, a Birla University ,a Reliance University, a HCL University, a TVS University, a Bharti University, a Bajaj University, an ITC University, an ICICI University, a HDFC University, and many more dotting the country over the next decade. Just the thought of the impact they could have, with each of them specialising in different areas, sends a frisson of excitement down the spine. It took almost 13 years, from 1896 when Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata wrote to Lord Reay about the creation of a national university, to 1909 when the Government of India issued the vesting order for the institute, for the Indian Institute of Science to see the light of day. Azim Premji has shown that it will take much less time today from idea to reality.